Live data from Hacker News

California spent $17B on homelessness – it’s not working

wsj.com

651–660 of 1001 posts

Re: California spent $17B on homelessness – it’s not working

#651
post #596

Luckily a San Franciscan figured it all out over one hundred years ago: > THE GREAT PROBLEM IS SOLVED. We are able to explain social phenomena that have appalled philanthropists and perplexed statesmen all over the civilized world. We have found the reason why wages constantly tend to a minimum, giving but a bare living, despite increase in productive power: > As productive power increases, rent tends to increase eve…

Wages do increase, but then it's all spent on housing. And lately, also spent on healthcare.

Re: California spent $17B on homelessness – it’s not working

#653
post #596

Luckily a San Franciscan figured it all out over one hundred years ago: > THE GREAT PROBLEM IS SOLVED. We are able to explain social phenomena that have appalled philanthropists and perplexed statesmen all over the civilized world. We have found the reason why wages constantly tend to a minimum, giving but a bare living, despite increase in productive power: > As productive power increases, rent tends to increase eve…

Another way of addressing the problem (in terms of the framing above) is to make land unnecessary to labor. Universal work from anywhere would substantially reduce the ability to extract rent because it would increase competition among a much larger group of landowners. Why do you think all the landowners are so eager for the peons to RTO?

I'm a little bit skeptical that we could destroy our business clusters and remain equally competitive on the world stage.

Seems a lot easier to tax land.

Re: California spent $17B on homelessness – it’s not working

#654
California state officials have managed to spend $17B on it, I'd say the homelessness problem is working just fine for them. It sounds cynical, but this is what "managing," a problem in government means - extracting value from it. If you want less homelessness, you need fewer people benefiting from it. It's that simple. Government isn't about solving problems, it's about managing them to the benefit of the constituents who vote them back in.

Homelessness is encouraged by California policies that are essentially accelerationist, where they create the problem and exacerbate it to get the money and power to solve it, and then they've got something to manage indefinitely to keep getting those things. This is why you have a border crisis, and why your neighbourhoods have tent cities. Outside the cadre of people who think they will make up the central committee, few actually want unlimted centralized governments and policies when life is good and peaceful, so agitaing to make things much, much worse is how you get popular support to seize control and entrench your people. It's not a conspiracy, it's just strategy, and most people can't face that because they don't know what power is like, or understand what it means when they say it is the highest good. Homelessness is the symptom of a much deeper and more malignant social cancer, imo.

Re: California spent $17B on homelessness – it’s not working

#655
post #215
post #171

What's crazy is that we decide to spend on homelessness in such inefficient ways. A "housing first" strategy would be more humane, and pretty affordable compared to what we're currently doing. This article says $3.7B for an estimated 115k homeless population which yields around $32k per person per year, or $2700 per person per month, and that's only state money. In SF it may be more like $57k/yr, or $4750/mo. At thos…

I think on this issues it’s conservatives that make a solution untenable. Conservatives are going to be against giving out living space. So that kills any housing first policies. The alternative has to be something that a politician can sponsor and be confident that in a few years when they are up for re-election that there won’t be any obvious fraud or abuse. Eg. If their policy is found to have housed a crack den t…

> I think on this issues it’s conservatives that make a solution untenable. > Conservatives are going to be against giving out living space. So that kills any housing first policies.

I'm trying to figure out the basis for your argument... surely you aren't suggesting that places like California want to do this but can't seem to overcome the conservative opposition in the state legislature, right? :)

See also : https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr-edge-inpractice-0... (one of the most conservative states in the country has been trying different housing first strategies for nearly two decades)

Re: California spent $17B on homelessness – it’s not working

#656

Having lived/spent time in a few places with varying homeless problems and approaches to homelessness, I find it fucking depressing every time I read about how badly - and inefficiently - the US handles it. Probably because I see alarming parallels with my own country. Billions going where, exactly? If the problems growing, and you are just sinking billions into it without making any measurable impact, where the fuck…

The Greater Boston Food Bank CEO cleared a $500K salary this year, for a job that's largely remote because the area is too dangerous for the non-profit white collar workers. Do you think she wants "food insecurity" to be solved? https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/427...

this seems fine to me, managing the greater boston food bank sounds like it needs a good manager to better spend the other 99.8%

Re: California spent $17B on homelessness – it’s not working

#657
post #638

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Proven to work in Finland Finland, a tiny baltic nation that has almost nothing in common with the USA.

The Bay Area is about the same population as Finland. And it has a higher gdp per capita than Finland. I agree that we are working with more “technical debt” than Finland is, and copy-pasting exact policy won’t work. But strategically I don’t see a major difference.

The Bay Area doesn't control immigration and cannot set its own monetary policy. Some problems need to be solved at the Federal level, but the Bay Area does not set Federal policy.

Re: California spent $17B on homelessness – it’s not working

#658

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm quoting a tweet from the president of Y Combinator. I'm not against giving people housing, but I think there needs to be a sobriety requirement. Why would putting someone in a house cure them of their addiction? Put them through rehab, then give them a house when they leave rehab.

They use drugs because they live on the streets. Treating a symptom instead of the cause is stupid, especially if the symptom (drug use) will likely return as soon as they return to the streets after rehab/prison.

Parent didn’t suggest returning them to the streets after rehab. They said give them free housing after rehab.

That being said, addiction is not easily cured with or without free housing, if the substance of addiction is easily available nearby (alcohol, drugs, casinos) without additional support systems.

Re: California spent $17B on homelessness – it’s not working

#659

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's very hard to work around human nature and the whole "why am I paying rent like a sucker when the drug addicts on the street are getting free apartments?" I also think that people who point out that a huge percentage of the people on the street are on drugs, so the drugs are the problem are not entirely correct either. The drug use is a symptom that also exacerbates the problem. One of the big contributing factor…

When wages go up, rents go up. For rents to go down you either have to have more housing or less people in a given area.

Or rent control.

Re: California spent $17B on homelessness – it’s not working

#660

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is strong local resistance to construction especially if it's for poor people, or worse, homeless, The US used to do that. It led to high-rise ghettos.[1] And that was before drugs were big. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Taylor_Homes

Honestly, social housing isn't my preferred solution. My solution is radical upzoning; removal of minimum unit-sizes; drastically simplify the approval/permit process and remove all local hearings etc. from the process, if it fits the regulations, you can build it; forced rehab for addicts; institutionalize mentally ill who cannot take care of themselves (this is the hardest part, I am least certain about).

Disagree on 'minimum unit sizes', at least where I live 0-bedroom loft-only units are already small enough!

I do agree with other ideas that promote more flexible application of possibly small units.

Ideas such as 'fire proof' (no flammable materials in building construction) buildings with relaxed regulations about access to egress, so that stupid middle hallway can be removed.

Very agree with an easier and known approval if checking the boxes process. Local hearings banned, environmental impacts should be part of the zoning for a given plot; fit 'within the lines' and no re-assessment.

Post reply on HN